COMEVIL wrote:Hard to say without seeing the records. Maybe they performed poorly in command? Maybe Command was their one highlight in an otherwise mundane career?

Or maybe stuck in traffic with other COs? Hard to believe they made the command list (13% selection or something like that) if everything was mundane. Also hard to believe they made that cut, but not the 60% (or whatever it was) selection to O6. But then again, different selection boards, different chairs, different guidance.

COMEVIL wrote:There is no better "career move" than going to command. While it may not get you advanced, there is no greater opportunity to lead, mentor, and leave a legacy than command.

Depends on your definition of career move. If it is in hopes of making Captain, then I think 3 COs disagree with you. I happen to agree with your assessment on opportunity to serve and leave a legacy.

LIVINGIW wrote:Depends on your definition of career move. If it is in hopes of making Captain, then I think 3 COs disagree with you. I happen to agree with your assessment on opportunity to serve and leave a legacy.

Hence my quotes around "career." All depends on what you want out of your service. Command and advancement don't always go hand in hand.

We selected a great group of officers on this board--their records reflected their years or dedicated service and superior performance. It is a testament to the strength of our community that a significant group of talented, highly competitive officers were unfortunately not selected. I have every confidence that with continued brilliant performance in hard assignments, we have opportunities in the future to select them, and we continue to value all of our talented officers.

1/10 had or were in Commander Command (2 of remaining 9 had or were in O5 XO tours)10/10 had or were in Commander Milestone 6/10 were JQO 10/10 completed JPME phase 18/10 completed JPME phase 27/10 completed or were in a full Joint tour3/10 completed GSA/IA Tour9/10 completed Master's Program1/10 holds acquisition qualifications

Key discriminators were sustained superior performance in leadership and operational assignments. - In the absence of hard breakouts among peer 18X0 or IWC officers, soft breakouts among the entire pay grade were critical. Competitive summary group performance was decisive.- The most competitive officers had progression toward Joint qualification.- Diversity in both job mission and location is a positive factor.

This board was the first where zone stamps were removed. IW communities as a whole selected 5 AZ and 2 BZ officers. We will continue to develop and refine our career path, expectations for best and fully qualified officers, assignments on milestone list, and our CW command opportunity rate as we evolve as Cryptologists and as part of the IWC. I encourage all of you to read the convening order for these boards, both for your own understanding of our community's definition of best and fully qualified, and to enhance your mentoring. "

It is senseless to speculate what happened in the tank and though the result may counter our value statement, the below is from our precept:

"The best qualified IW officers will additionally have been screened for and/or completed a Command tour as a commander"

Do what you love and do it well. But please know that our values are communicated in board precepts; the result may not always align (clearly it didn't here). I would also ask that you consider the role of the reporting senior. Clearly some reporting seniors either suffered from "My Sailor Syndrome" or were just afraid to have the difficult conversation. I would assess 4 of 11 need some help if they are to grow into their new collar devices and those same 4 may never become COs. You know why? Because we value Command. We value leadership. We demand our Commands are led by the best we have to offer. The best we have to offer don't necessarily get promoted.

I think we forget that URLs select promotion and our community selects commanding officers. I am sure all the COs had great paper, but in the event of a tie with a URL chairing the board which do you think is looked upon more favorably? Breakouts in a tough fleet assignment on a two star staff? Or 1/1 at a shore command in command with limited interaction with URLs. This board is likely an aberration, but if the trend lines continue we might need to change the way we are selecting our command officers.

Premier Ruc wrote:I think we forget that URLs select promotion and our community selects commanding officers. I am sure all the COs had great paper, but in the event of a tie with a URL chairing the board which do you think is looked upon more favorably? Breakouts in a tough fleet assignment on a two star staff? Or 1/1 at a shore command in command with limited interaction with URLs. This board is likely an aberration, but if the trend lines continue we might need to change the way we are selecting our command officers.

Good thoughts - Some clarification...

Having stood two promotion boards (one O6 and one O4), I can assure you that it is not the URLs who make our promotion decisions. There are two key elements. One (and most important) is the paper written on the individuals being considered. The thing is it's the very same paper that informs the CO selection board. As you become RSs, don't underestimate the power of the paper you sign. Use that power for good. Lobby for our best and make it clear who our less than best are. Leads to many genuine conversations and that's what leaders do. We don't lobby equally hard for everyone under our charge, we make it clear who our best are and that includes making it clear who isn't quite our best. Second, is the power of the briefer. The Community Briefers are responsible for communicating our values and making it clear to the rest of the tank (based solely on paper) who is best and fully qualified. Other communities make it very clear that if someone has command as an O5 and enjoyed a band at the Change of Command, they are who we want at the next level. Our precept states the same without saying it so directly. Something got lost in translation.

As a leader fortunate enough to be enjoying O6 Command right now after enjoying every day as an O5 CO, I can assure you that there is nothing like it. There are many roles across the IWC and Navy that are at least as vital to our collective success, but for me, none are nearly as fulfilling. This result is an aberration, so please do not dwell on it. That said, if our best start to decide that they don't want to take on the challenge (and done right, it most certainly is), we will enter a downward spiral. While there are few things as critical to operational success as effective leaders, there is nothing more impactful than people who cannot effectively lead yet are assigned to leadership positions. We need to ensure our COs are ready and willing to lead. I certainly hope that our best are the ones most willing to lead at the Command level. Rather than frame this around how does this impact future promotion, I am concerned with how this affects your desire for Command. If any of you are interested in a conversation, please let me know. I'm very passionate and concerned about this subject.

Premier Ruc wrote:...Or 1/1 at a shore command in command with limited interaction with URLs...

Please know that all of our COs are ranked together, so less a detachment of individual FITREP, there is rarely a 1/1 instance (e.g., special report by CDR or you are in a approved/selected category based on retirement/promotion). Those of us fortunate to be a part of the FCC Team share a singular RS, whether O5 or O6 Command. Those who fall under ONI and CID do the same under their respective RS. Clearly, there is more "traffic" for the commands who make up TF 1000.

These are the types of conversations we need to be having as a wardroom (we do at NCDOC). Those of you not serving at an IWC Command deserve the benefit of the same dialogue. That's one purpose of this forum and the Town Hall series we are attempting to create...did one at NCDOC for the Norfolk Waterfront in the fall and will do another at NIOC SD in JUN.

Arkad wrote:Those of you not serving at an IWC Command deserve the benefit of the same dialogue. That's one purpose of this forum and the Town Hall series we are attempting to create...did one at NCDOC for the Norfolk Waterfront in the fall and will do another at NIOC SD in JUN.

Mid-September is a particularly good time to come to Germany for a EUCOM/AFRICOM town hall.

1820 results. Some similarities. STEM and cyber seem well represented. Not too sure about the "superior performance in the milestone and leadership positions" bumper sticker (3/10 Commander command) provided as a key discriminator. Taken together with 1810 results, I'm mildly curious about voting members' perceptions of IWC commands/commanders and how they fit into the broader Navy, particularly beyond the O6 level. Given O5 board precepts and O5 command boards, though, expect this result is an anomaly for 1810s going forward. Also would be surprised if there aren't several 1810 AZ selects next year.

High level analysis:3 of 10 had completed or were in Commander Command10 of 10 had completed O5 Milestone10 of 10 were Command Qualified5 of 10 were Joint Qualified Officer9 of 10 had full Joint tour credit5 of 10 were JPME phase 2 complete9 of 10 was JPME phase 1 complete9 of 10 had a Master’s Degree (8 of those were STEM degrees)5 of 10 had cyber workforce AQDs2 of 10 had NSW AQDs2 of 10 had acquisition AQDs2 of 10 had space AQDs3 of 10 had IA/GSA

Key discriminators were superior performance in the milestone and leadership positions. When there was lack of competitive breakout there was a soft breakout.